Abstract
A two-year consecutive experiment was conducted at agriculture Research Institute Mingora Swat, Pakistan during Rabi 2016–17 and 2017–18 to study the residual effect of carbon sources on water use efficiency and subsequent wheat productivity. Carbon sources (peach leaf and rotten fruits on dry basis, compost of peach residues and biochar of these residues), Three P rates (P1 = 50, P2 = 75, and P3 = 100 kg P ha−1) with two irrigation levels (225 and 175 mm) along with traditional planting with no irrigation, were used in the experiment. No carbon sources or phosphorus was applied to the wheat crop at any stage. The results clearly indicated that CS such as biochar with improved irrigation system of 225 mm could enhance the soil water availability in 0–100 cm during the key growth stages, as well as WUE and rainfall use efficiency were improved by 34% and 51% as compared with no irrigation, respectively. Maximum yield components were produced by compost while biological yield was increased with biochar amendments. It is concluded that irrigation volume of 225 mm produced higher grain yield when wheat was sown after the preceding crop treated with biochar and 75 kg P ha−1. It is concluded that biochar with 225 mm irrigation level is a suitable treatment for efficient consumption of local rainfall and increase subsequent wheat productivity under the northern climatic scenario of Pakistan because it improves the Evapo Transpiration (WUE), Radiation Use Efficiency (RUE) and reduces ET levels, thereby enhancing the grain yield, net profit, and food security.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar with 225 mm irrigation improved WUE by 34% compared with no irrigation in subsequent wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume2 - Treatment
- biochar with improved irrigation system of 225 mme1
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Value
- 34%e1
- Comparator
- no irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CS such as biochar with improved irrigation system of 225 mm could enhance the soil water availability in 0–100 cm during the key growth stages, as well as WUE and rainfall use efficiency were improved by 34% and 51% as compared with no irrigation, respectively”
e2“to study the residual effect of carbon sources on water use efficiency and subsequent wheat productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar with 225 mm irrigation improved rainfall use efficiency by 51% compared with no irrigation in subsequent wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- biochar with improved irrigation system of 225 mme1
- Outcome
- rainfall use efficiencye1
- Direction
- improvede1
- Value
- 51%e1
- Comparator
- no irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CS such as biochar with improved irrigation system of 225 mm could enhance the soil water availability in 0–100 cm during the key growth stages, as well as WUE and rainfall use efficiency were improved by 34% and 51% as compared with no irrigation, respectively”
e2“to study the residual effect of carbon sources on water use efficiency and subsequent wheat productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar with 225 mm irrigation could enhance soil water availability in 0–100 cm during key wheat growth stages.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- biochar with improved irrigation system of 225 mme1
- Outcome
- soil water availability in 0–100 cme1
- Direction
- enhancee1
- Qualifier
- during the key growth stagese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CS such as biochar with improved irrigation system of 225 mm could enhance the soil water availability in 0–100 cm during the key growth stages, as well as WUE and rainfall use efficiency were improved by 34% and 51% as compared with no irrigation, respectively”
e2“to study the residual effect of carbon sources on water use efficiency and subsequent wheat productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost gave the maximum yield components in subsequent wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- composte1
- Outcome
- yield componentse1
- Direction
- Maximume1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maximum yield components were produced by compost”
e2“to study the residual effect of carbon sources on water use efficiency and subsequent wheat productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Biological yield of subsequent wheat increased with biochar amendments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- biochar amendmentse1
- Outcome
- biological yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“biological yield was increased with biochar amendments”
e2“to study the residual effect of carbon sources on water use efficiency and subsequent wheat productivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation of 225 mm produced higher grain yield when wheat was sown after a preceding crop treated with biochar and 75 kg P ha−1.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- irrigation volume of 225 mme1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- when wheat was sown after the preceding crop treated with biochar and 75 kg P ha−1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“irrigation volume of 225 mm produced higher grain yield when wheat was sown after the preceding crop treated with biochar and 75 kg P ha−1”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar with 225 mm irrigation is recommended as a suitable treatment to increase subsequent wheat productivity in the northern climatic scenario of Pakistan.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- biochar with 225 mm irrigation levele1
- Outcome
- subsequent wheat productivitye1
- Setting
- northern climatic scenario of Pakistane1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“biochar with 225 mm irrigation level is a suitable treatment for efficient consumption of local rainfall and increase subsequent wheat productivity under the northern climatic scenario of Pakistan”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar with 225 mm irrigation improved Radiation Use Efficiency (RUE) in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- biochar with 225 mm irrigation levele1
- Outcome
- Radiation Use Efficiency (RUE)e2
- Direction
- improvese2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“biochar with 225 mm irrigation level is a suitable treatment for efficient consumption of local rainfall and increase subsequent wheat productivity under the northern climatic scenario of Pakistan”
e2“it improves the Evapo Transpiration (WUE), Radiation Use Efficiency (RUE)”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar with 225 mm irrigation reduced ET levels in wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- biochar with 225 mm irrigation levele1
- Outcome
- ET levelse2
- Direction
- reducese2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“biochar with 225 mm irrigation level is a suitable treatment for efficient consumption of local rainfall and increase subsequent wheat productivity under the northern climatic scenario of Pakistan”
e2“reduces ET levels”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →biochar · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →biochar · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
79 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
81 papers more in this group
See all 85 papers →biochar · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
110 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
117 papers more in this group
See all 121 papers →other · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
205 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
219 papers more in this group
See all 223 papers →irrigation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
176 papers in the same direction as this paper · 61 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
299 papers more in this group
See all 303 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.